- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
4 SCOTUS Justices will hear Loy Brunson v. Alam Adams, et, al. on 06/24.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/8/23 at 1:42 pm
From this date the justices could decide on a full hearing sometime in October.
This is the description from a Bill Still video on the matter:
Link to petition: LINK
Link to Bill Still video discussing the case with Loy Brunson: LINK
Fun to keep track of but don't get your hopes up. (And I lol @ just the thought of SCOTUS removing the president, VP and most of congress). What is amazing is 4 justices are willing to even start the process at the SCOTUS level considering ALL the request for a hearing they get per year.
This is the description from a Bill Still video on the matter:
quote:
Loy Brunson is a Constitutional scholar and one of 4 Brunson brothers. One of his greatest discoveries about the U.S. Constitution is that members of Congress do not have the broad immunity that many of them think they do.
This revelation about Congressional immunity may soon play a huge role in an upcoming case that may soon come before the United States Supreme Court.
At this time the Supremes could make a decision that would remove the President, Vice President, and a sizeable majority of members of Congress from their roles as representatives of the people of the United States of America for refusing to do any sort of an examination of the results of the 2020 election. Failure to take on this Constitutional responsibility – regardless of what Mike Pence has to say on this matter, could be considered a national security emergency requiring emergency judicial action.
At that time, the Supremes could order that special elections would be held barely months into the future to replace the displaced Senators and Congressional representatives – probably the most remarkable positive event in American history.
Rule 11 gives the Supremes the ability to move a case to a decision very swiftly because if granted, it recognizes that making a decision on the matter in very urgent to the overall health of the nation. It is done as a matter of a national emergency.
Link to petition: LINK
Link to Bill Still video discussing the case with Loy Brunson: LINK
Fun to keep track of but don't get your hopes up. (And I lol @ just the thought of SCOTUS removing the president, VP and most of congress). What is amazing is 4 justices are willing to even start the process at the SCOTUS level considering ALL the request for a hearing they get per year.
9
Posted on 6/8/23 at 1:46 pm to GumboPot
If it looks like this gets a favorable reception, the attempts to either kill or coerce members of the court will step up.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 1:48 pm to GumboPot
quote:
could be considered a national security emergency requiring emergency judicial action
Could be?
And why only now? After all the destruction, proxy wars, stolen tax dollars, open borders, etc etc.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 1:49 pm to GumboPot
this will be very interesting
I read some on it, and is is basicly failure to fulfill their oath of office.
if they favorably rule, it will change the nature of politics, proving the politicians are liable
I read some on it, and is is basicly failure to fulfill their oath of office.
if they favorably rule, it will change the nature of politics, proving the politicians are liable
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:06 pm to dr
quote:
this will be very interesting
I read some on it, and is is basicly failure to fulfill their oath of office.
if they favorably rule, it will change the nature of politics, proving the politicians are liable
Yes. In terms of outcome, if the case gets a full hearing in October, there is no way SCOTUS would rule to remove the president, VP and a large part of congress. However they could rule favorably making politicians more legally bound to their oath (that would be more fully explained in the majority opinion).
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:19 pm to GumboPot
Wake up, the fbi and cia leveraged most of Congress, they won't let SCOTUS invalidate any politician they control.
Stop pretending we are a functioning Republic.
Defund the cia and fbi.
Stop pretending we are a functioning Republic.
Defund the cia and fbi.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:22 pm to GumboPot
What are they going to hear on June 24th?
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:34 pm to boosiebadazz
It's not a hearing. 6/24 is the apparent date the decision on whether to grant a writ will be issued. it takes 4 justices to agree to take up a case for the Court to consider a case on the merits.
Someone is making a shitton of assumptions.
Someone is making a shitton of assumptions.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:34 pm to GumboPot
It would be
quote:
the most remarkable positive event in American history.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 2:40 pm to boosiebadazz
I think that’s the date where they will decide whether to grant cert pursuant to Rule 11 petition. News account of the families efforts. Provides a bit more info on the actual disposition of the district court case than the (semi) lack of due process claim in the petition
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:20 pm to GumboPot
quote:
At this time the Supremes could make a decision that would remove the President, Vice President, and a sizeable majority of members of Congress from their roles as representatives of the people of the United States of America
That’s weird, Diana Ross is the only one still alive.
Who knew they had this kind of power?
This post was edited on 6/8/23 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:23 pm to udtiger
Oh, so more inaccurate misrepresentations from GumboPot. Got it.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:35 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Oh, so more inaccurate misrepresentations from GumboPot. Got it.
So 4 SCOTUS justices will hear Loy Brunson v. Alam Adams, et al. on 6/24 or not?
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:41 pm to GumboPot
Don't worry about booze. He just nervous about this
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:43 pm to GumboPot
I guess even Supreme Court Justices are forced to listen to ridiculous bullshite cases.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:51 pm to TGFN57
quote:
I guess even Supreme Court Justices are forced to listen to ridiculous bullshite cases.
Look, I'm not a trained lawyer but this is not a full hearing of the case. It's my understanding that this is a writ of certiorari and a 4 judge panel hearing on 6/24. The 4 judges will then decide if this case is worthy of a full hearing in October. I'm not a lawyer and I don't practice law for a living so my language is probably imprecise talking about this on a message board so I apologize to boosie if he was confused by the OP. With that said, it's still a very interesting case and more interesting in the fact that 4 judges allowed the case to move up from the appellate court to become more fully informed on the matter. That is why I posted it.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:58 pm to GumboPot
quote:
So 4 SCOTUS justices will hear Loy Brunson v. Alam Adams, et al. on 6/24 or not?
I think this is a semantic issue. On 6/24, definitely not. That's a Saturday. The court does have a non-argument and conference day on June 22. LINK. ON that date, there is a conference scheduled on this matter. LINK
Most would not call that a "hearing," and in the SC calendar venacular its a "conference."
The Brunson's are likely conflating that with a "hearing" that involves full argument in front of the court. They appear to think that their petition going to conference puts them among the few Rule 11 petitioners who receive cert to be placed on the calendar for a disposition and ruling. If the latter occurs, it would be rare, but not unprecedented. There is nothing procedurally anomalous about the court having a conference on a petition that was filed pursuant to applicable procedure.
Posted on 6/8/23 at 4:04 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I don't practice law for a living so my language is probably imprecise talking about this on a message board so I apologize to boosie if he was confused by the OP. With that said, it's still a very interesting case and more interesting in the fact that 4 judges allowed the case to move up from the appellate court to become more fully informed on the matter.
Yes, I think this is just an issue of language. Nevertheless, I think the embedded counterpoint is that any Rule 11 petition has to have a disposition. There isn't a special cert being granted to hear this because of any feature of the case. If you file a petition pursuant to SC rules, then clerk must accept the filing and place it on the docket. The court then decides whether to grant cert. This is a proper Rule 11 petition because his case was dismissed by the District court. He can request pursuant to Rule 11 that the SC hear the case without him having to exhaust his appeal in the Circuit court of appeals. If that petition is granted (in any matter), its very rare (albeit on the upswing in the past few years).
Posted on 6/8/23 at 4:07 pm to dukkbill
Posted on 6/8/23 at 4:33 pm to GumboPot
SCOTUS refused to hear Trump's arguments after the Great Fraud of 2020 because "Mr. Trump cannot claim this has affected him, since he is still the President".
Then, after Biden was installed, SCOTUS again refused to hear Trump's arguments, this time saying, "Mr. Trump has no standing, as this election has been certified by Congress. It is illegal for Congress to certify a fraudulent election, therefore the Congressionally certified election results are legal."
Who among us still believes that the fricking spineless SCOTUS will do anything good going forward? They're completely terrified (rightfully so) of the unhinged mob that will descend upon them if they start upholding what is left of the Constitution.
....
Want a REAL reason to remove the ENTIRETY of Congress? Ask them what their primary job as House members and Senators is. The answer? The #1 job of a freely elected Congress is to pass a fricking yearly BUDGET. Kicking the can down the road with lazy omnibus bills packed with pork and ramming through unconstitutional measures via bypass is NOT their job, but it's all they do.
Congress hasn't passed an actual budget in two generations, folks.
Then, after Biden was installed, SCOTUS again refused to hear Trump's arguments, this time saying, "Mr. Trump has no standing, as this election has been certified by Congress. It is illegal for Congress to certify a fraudulent election, therefore the Congressionally certified election results are legal."
Who among us still believes that the fricking spineless SCOTUS will do anything good going forward? They're completely terrified (rightfully so) of the unhinged mob that will descend upon them if they start upholding what is left of the Constitution.
....
Want a REAL reason to remove the ENTIRETY of Congress? Ask them what their primary job as House members and Senators is. The answer? The #1 job of a freely elected Congress is to pass a fricking yearly BUDGET. Kicking the can down the road with lazy omnibus bills packed with pork and ramming through unconstitutional measures via bypass is NOT their job, but it's all they do.
Congress hasn't passed an actual budget in two generations, folks.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News